英语论文网

There is a second use of the word ‘paradigm’ in Epistemology which we must address and master, which is totally unrelated to that which features in arguments such as the paradigm case argument. Indeed it has little connection with any ordinary use of the English word ‘paradigm’. It was introduced by the eminent Harvard historian and philosopher of science Thomas S. Kuhn (1922 +). Kuhn’s own background was in the natural sciences, especially physics, and he developed his account of scientific evolution, and particularly of the embrace and abandonment of theories, with an emphasis on the traditional natural sciences. Indeed some forty years ago he wrote that he doubted that there was yet any paradigm, in his preferred sense – of which more is to follow – in any of the social sciences, although he thought that eventually this might change. Despite this the social sciences are, critics would say, littered with references to paradigms. As Wittgenstein is reputed to have said of another subject in another context, ‘When you see a reference to a paradigm, be sure and get your typhoid shot.’ This is a subject we will pursue next week.

Reading:

Kuhn, Thomas S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd edition) Chicago: the University of Chicago Press, 1970. (Or any other edition.)

Week 10 Content
HUMR71-110 EPISTEMOLOGY AND THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE

Week 10.

Reading:

Kuhn, T.S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd Edition. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. 1970.

Rosenberg, A., Philosophy of Science: A Contemporary Introduction 2nd Edition. New York, Routledge, Chapters 6 and 7.

1. The Impact of Thomas Kuhn (1922 + ).

By general consensus Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (first published in 1962) is “the most influential book in modern philosophy of science.” The book involves a mixture of both philosophical investigation (what justifies the abandonment of a particular scientific theory?) and sociological description (how is scientific research actually practiced, and what are the cultural and institutional factors that shape the practice?) Kuhn (and most commentators) categorise it as a seminal contribution to a revitalised understanding of the history of science. It is important to notice that the sciences Kuhn is concerned with are the natural sciences, although we should also be aware that aspects of his work, including the notion of a paradigm, have been liberally applied in the social sciences: so much so that new researchers are commonly asked to identify which paradigm they are working within. This is despite Kuhn’s reluctance to extend his account beyond the natural sciences, and his serious doubts, expressed in the 1960s, that any of the social sciences had yielded a paradigm, and his reservations about thinking that it was even appropriate to use the concept in relation to the social sciences. This reflected Kuhn’s belief that there was a sharp discontinuity between the natural sciences on the one hand and the social sciences on the other.

Thus one question that mus本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。